In the twentieth century, flooding caused more
deaths and property damage in the United States than any other natural
disaster. Most climate models predict that flooding will worsen in the future,
a prospect that is leading a growing number of communities to explore the use
of natural areas as protection against extreme events. These areas are
currently providing flood mitigation benefits. They store floodwaters and
lessen the flow to area streams and rivers; in coastal areas, they may protect
against storm surge and flooding from hurricanes.

Perhaps most important, by remaining undeveloped,
they reduce exposure to storms. But how much more valuable will the lands
become if floods are more frequent or severe in the future

(T)he greenway provides a substantial flood
mitigation benefit right now, even before considering increased risks from
climate change. According to our estimates, the current protected lands yield
an average annual benefit in the form of avoided flood damages of $13.1 million
a year, or about $6,000 per acre. If climate change causes peak discharges to
rise by 30 percent, an increase consistent with some of the (limited)
literature on how climate change will affect flood risks in the region, the
benefits of the greenway are $4.5 million higher. If peak discharges rise by 50
percent, which we look at as an upper bound, the benefits of the greenway are
$7.9 million higher. If the frequency of flood events doubles, the benefits
double. And finally, if the frequency of only the worst events doubles (the
100-, 250-, and 500-year events), we find that the benefits increase by just
$1.2 million, or 9 percent.

The climate resilience benefits of conservation are very real - and huge.
Consider that these "returns" to the citizens of Missouri from this single greenway will go on - and will likely rise substantially - year after year. It
sure beats the stock market.

The decision is an important elucidation of the state Constitution's environmental rights amendment, contained in Article 1, section 27. See pages 114-119 of the decision.

The court also found unconstitutional another section of Act 13 that allowed the Department of Environmental Protection to grant waivers for setback requirements from water sources, and sent the issue of the Act 13's "physician gag rule" back to a lower court.The Court said many important things in this decision, among them:

By any reasonable account, exploitation of the Marcellus ShaleFormation will produce a detrimental effect on the environment, on thepeople, their children, and future generations, and potentially on thepublic purse, perhaps rivaling the environmental effects of coalextraction.

A
new study fromResources for
the Future finds that shale gas development affects the value of nearby
homes differently, depending on distance from a well, how long ago the nearby
well was drilled, and whether the home relies on a well for its water supply.

For
homes that depend on groundwater, the closer they are to a shale gas well, the
worse off they are (e.g., at 1.5km, a shale gas well decreases values by 4
percent but at 1km it decreases values by 22 percent).

For
homes that have access to piped water, being within 1.5km or 2km increases
their value (by 3 to 6 percent), likely due to royalty payments, but being
closer (i.e., within 1km) does not affect values.

At
a regional level (within 20km), recently drilled wells have a positive effect
on property values. This “boomtown” effect, however, is temporary and fades one
year after the well’s drilling.

The
results are not surprising, but the research is important to understanding the complex
impacts of shale gas development.

Wednesday, December 18, 2013

A new report from the Environmental Integrity Project
says that projects that have been proposed over the last two years to transport shale gas or use it as a feedstock or fuel in industrial processes could
increase greenhouse gas emissions by 91 million tons - equal to the emissions
from 20 coal-fired power plants.

The shale gas boom has unleashed a tidal wave of proposals
to build new compressors and pipelines, and expand chemical, fertilizer, and
petroleum plants that depend on natural gas for feedstock or fuel. Since
January 1, 2012, these industries have proposed or already obtained Clean Air
Act permits that authorize a 91 million ton increase in greenhouse gas
emissions — as much as the output from twenty large (500 megawatt) coal-fired
power plants. This total does not include new emissions from proposed gas-fired
power plants or the multitude of smaller wells, gas processing plants,
compressor stations, and flares springing up across the landscape in shale-gas
rich states like North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and Texas.

Tuesday, December 17, 2013

This story from NationalJournal reports on new research published in the journal Endocrinologythat finds that chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing "can disrupt the body's hormones, namely reproductive hormones. Such chemicals seep into drinking water at natural-gas drilling sites during spills or accidents, and can interfere with endocrine functions when they enter the body".This risk can be avoided or minimized by replacing these chemicals with with benign chemicals and waterless fracking technologies.What will be the regulatory response? When will the business case for pursuing these twin solutions reach the tipping point to bring them into standard use?

Monday, December 16, 2013

This GreenBiz.com articledescribes Apache Corporation's efforts to reduce the volume and toxicity of chemicals it uses in hydraulic fracturing operations. It's an excellent primer on fracking chemicals and the search for safer alternatives.

The article says that the amount of chemicals used in a frack job is "minute": "Water and sand make up 98 to 99.5 percent of the hydraulic fracturing fluid, with the exact formulation varying from well to well." So, the remaining 0.5 to 2 per cent is comprised of chemicals.

But these small percentages translate into big volumes of chemicals. If the average frack job used five to six million gallons of water - as it does it the Marcellus play, for example - that means that each operation uses between 25,000 and 120,000 gallons of chemicals.

The article points out a number of co-benefits of reducing hazardous chemical use to exploration and production companies. Reduced chemical volumes not only save money outright but translate into fewer truck trips - saving more money, local air quality, reducing damage to local roads, and improving public safety. Further, eliminating volatile organic compounds would sharply reduce the risk of public health impacts (as would a requirement to use closed-loop, closed container systems for fluid handling).

A Green thing

The tree which moves some to tears of joy is in the eyes of others only a Green thing that stands in the way. Some see Nature all Ridicule and Deformity...and some scarce see Nature at all. But to the eyes of the Man of Imagination, Nature is Imagination itself.

William Blake, English poet (1757-1827)

About Me

John is Director of the Center for Environment, Energy, and Economy and Lecturer in Sustainability at Harrisburg University of Science and Technology. He is a former Senior Fellow and current Advisory Board member at the Kleinman Center for Energy Policy at the University of Pennsylvania, and a consultant. He served as Secretary of the PA Department of Environmental Protection from Jan. 2015-May 2016, and as Secretary of the PA Department of Conservation and Natural Resources from April 2009-Jan. 2011. He is the only person in PA's history to serve as Secretary of both of the state's natural resource agencies. He also served as a two term Mayor of Hazleton, PA, and as an Alternate Federal Commissioner on the Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin.
John is a graduate of Bloomsburg University with a degree in economics, and holds a Master of Public Administration degree from Lehigh University.